> WCAG 2.0 is meant to be technology-independent. It is possible to provide
> examples of problems in the current versions of (X)HTML, but not for future
> technologies (e.g. XHTML 2.0) or even new ones (how do you provide examples
> of problems in SVG or XForms when there is no AT support for these formats?).
This is a diversionary tactic preferred by Gregg as well. You can use the
argument that WCAG 2 has to be technology-neutral to put through *any*
guideline without supporting evidence.
The Working Group needs to stop concentrating on a fantasy futurescape in
which unknowable new technologies have come along and blown existing
technologies out of the water. I'm gonna say this again: You can't prove
that something's a problem if you can't give examples of how it's a
problem today. Web sites are going to consist of (X)HTML, CSS, JavaScript,
Flash, and PDF for the indefinite future.
Additionally, and this is a weaker argument, even implying otherwise
undermines the entire focus of the W3C, which is to favour its own
specifications and processes over others.
> Matt May wrote in reponse to your mail:
> "You've completely missed the other half of the problem, which is that we can
> find many examples of valid pages that are plenty inaccessible."
> The examples I provided, even though imperfect, showed that this is not a
> merely theoretical issue.
The examples, since they are imperfect, show that even proponents of the
idea cannot prove that valid pages are "plenty inaccessible."
The people who know what validity is are high-level Web developers, as
Matt has told us already. They're the ones least likely to screw
accessibility up.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
--This.
--What's wrong with top-posting?